On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 11:12:47 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
AG, your inability to engage without resorting to childish insults speaks volumes about your character. Proofs and explanations were provided repeatedly, but your deliberate refusal to engage with them isn’t anyone’s fault but your own. Simultaneity’s role has been outlined clearly—it resolves the disagreement by explaining how events align differently in each frame. You ignored it then, and now you’re pretending it was never explained. That’s peak trolling. If you can’t handle the discussion without devolving into personal attacks, maybe it’s time to step away. Your insults don’t make you look clever—they just confirm what everyone already knows: you’re not here for the physics, just to waste time. *You're a total prick. You never explained it adequately. All you did was repeat several times that it solved the problem.That's why I referred to your "explanation" as a slogan. I really don't want to discuss this further with a lying abusive shit such as you. AG* Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 19:07, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 9:46:06 AM UTC-7 Quentin Anciaux wrote: AG, your misunderstanding is once again on full display. Simultaneity is about the frame-dependent nature of when events occur. The frames disagree on whether the car fits because simultaneity shifts the timing of events like the back entering the garage and the front exiting. Your claim that "morons just say the words" is rich coming from someone who dismisses simultaneity entirely while pretending length contraction is enough. Calculations using the Lorentz transformations explicitly show how simultaneity shifts the alignment of events across frames. If you’d bothered to actually engage with the math instead of trolling, you’d see that simultaneity explains why there’s no contradiction. In the car frame, the garage is shorter, and simultaneity ensures that the back enters after the front leaves. That’s why the car doesn’t fit. This isn’t just "words"—it’s the direct consequence of SR and the LT. Your refusal to understand this isn’t a lack of calculation—it’s a lack of effort on your part. *Asshole; I several times asked for the proof, instead of a slogan, and you never provided it, except in part within the last two days. You're a Belgium shit. Stop with your stupid pretending mind-reading posts. AG * Le ven. 10 janv. 2025, 16:21, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit : On Friday, January 10, 2025 at 8:04:43 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 9:49 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: *> **if you believe in the LT, you can establish the car doesn't fit from the pov of the car frame, so if you believe in SR, you have to conclude that if such pictures could be taken, they could NOT be simultaneous. AG * *Then what are we arguing about? * There are no pictures taken simultaneity, I've never seen such pictures, so what the F were you alleging about what I've seen? But if you believe in SR and the LR, you have to conclude the car won't fit in car frame. The problem with invoking disagreement with simultaneity is that the morons who assert it just say the words, as if that's enough, but rarely if ever do they do any calculation to prove the key point; the time change of events in the car frame which would show no contradiction, no paradox. AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2927dd51-12b2-4844-b608-879490980d78n%40googlegroups.com.
